IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gay marriage , judicial activism charges

Reply
Old 7th May 2009, 10:50 AM   #361
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
(I do apologize for the rash of posts, but Skeptic's argument is so bad, I keep seeing new layers of being bad.)

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
See, here's the problem with your question. If I were in this situation and my first attempt to explain an argument was met with claims of not being understood, I would try a different approach and answer again, even many times if need be.
For example:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
I wonder: does this work both ways? Suppose someone told you that they're baffled about why women have the right to vote, and to every reply you make they'll claim they don't get it and that your argument makes their head hurt. Does it mean they win the argument, and you must concede that women shouldn't vote?
If discussing with someone who could not understand what I'm trying to say, I would change tact and try to understand their perspective: Why shouldn't women be allowed to vote? Then, walking through their argument, I could point out flaws in either premise or reason.

You may (or may not) have noticed that various people on this board are trying to understand your perspective.


Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
I'm just asking.
On the internet, we call that JAQing off.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 11:28 AM   #362
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,764
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
It not just about demeaning it, it's about the fact when you use the term "civil union" rather than marriage, couples are discriminated against in regard to benefits, such as health insurance and adoption.
Actually, I don't think so, at least in states where civil union has been in effect, and in regard to services within the state. If there is that discrimination in benefits, it's probably illegal if it can be proven. In Vermont, at least, the civil union law would not have satisfied the court mandate for equal protection otherwise. Unfortunately, changing civil union to marriage will not end across-border or federal level discrimination until it becomes universal.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 11:50 AM   #363
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Actually, I don't think so, at least in states where civil union has been in effect, and in regard to services within the state. If there is that discrimination in benefits, it's probably illegal if it can be proven. In Vermont, at least, the civil union law would not have satisfied the court mandate for equal protection otherwise. Unfortunately, changing civil union to marriage will not end across-border or federal level discrimination until it becomes universal.
It's not working so well in New Jersey.

Quote:
A state commission report to be released Tuesday -- the first anniversary of New Jersey's civil union law -- concludes it falls far short of a state Supreme Court order to give "same-sex couples . . . the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples who choose to marry."

"Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status," the Civil Union Review Commission says in its report.

Others give harsher assessments.

"The law is just a complete and utter failure," said Tom Prol, a trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Association. It's a failed experiment in discrimination."
Linky:
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/20...w_fails_t.html
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 01:45 PM   #364
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
True, although, perhaps not completely. I would argue that the same is very nearly true for gays. If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing. Such solutions are met with howls of protest, usually in America using the phrase "separate but equal", and complaints that by calling it something else you are inherently demeaning it, and so nothing short of an absolutely identical institution is acceptable.
Howls of protest are often justified when it comes to civil rights. Seperate but equal always ends up unequal. Look at the case in New Jersey where they have "equal civil unions":

Quote:
In a reversal of company policy, United Parcel Service today announced it would give benefits to employees in New Jersey civil unions on the same basis as the company gives benefits to married straight employees. Also as of today, 211 couples have reported to Garden State Equality that their employers refuse to recognize their civil unions. With the state recently having reported that 1,358 couples have gotten civil-unioned since the law took effect on February 19, the law's failure rate is an astonishing 1 in every 7.


...


Among the companies flaunting the civil unions law, according to two of the complaints, are two competitors of UPS: Fed Ex and DHL.

...

"What will happen to the employees who work for the many other companies, like Fed Ex and DHL, that won't cave in? How many of these couples and their children will have to suffer before the New Jersey legislature corrects the epidemic of inequality that the civil unions law has created?"
Linky.

Quote:
New Jersey should enact a law allowing gay marriage and waste no time passing it because the state's civil unions law fails to adequately protect same-sex couples, a report to be released today concludes.
The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered "overwhelming evidence" the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 01:49 PM   #365
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
*sigh*

I was trying to point out to Earthborn that any solution to the problem of equal rights for couples would have to be a complete and total solution. The reason for this is rooted in some subtleties of American history and jurisprudence. The solutions which have been perfectly adequate in Europe, where I am pretty sure Earthborn lives, would be considered politically unacceptable here.

Iíve debated various facets of the gay marriage debate over the years, and have modified my position greatly. Certain people have been highly influential in shifting my position. None more so than Scot Trypal, but Earthborn has been influential as well. Earthborn consistently brings up points that challenge some of my most basic assumptions. We frequently disagree on those points, but because they are brought up, I find myself constantly examining my own beliefs to see if they are the result of careful thought, or latent prejudice.

I appreciate people who can bring up challenging thoughts on various sides of an issue. It makes the discussion worthwhile. Not everyone succeeds in that fashion.
Methinks the sophist doth protest too much.

Quote:
On the subject of the incest-gay marriage link, despite the fact that I support a right to engage in sado-necro-bestiality, thereís not a whole lot more to be said. For those who feel they havenít studied the subject sufficiently, I recommend contemplating your own views on what are the limits on government regulation of sexual activity between consenting adults. Then, read Lawrence v. Texas and see how that agrees or disagrees with your view of the law, or what the law ought to be. Consider Skepticís, or my, assertions in the light of that decision. Make sure to read Scaliaís dissent, and OíConnorís partial concurrence. They address the subject of gay marriage directly.

Then, finally, to see where this slippery slope truly leads, google the phrase ďconservative judicial activismĒ and read some news articles about Norm Colemanís pending appeal in the Minnesota Senate race.

Or, alternatively, you could read an argument like Skepticís, and engage in a lot of name calling and derision. Thatís fun, too.
Talk about declaring victory and running away.

Or maybe this is covering your ears and going "La la la la la!"
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 03:08 PM   #366
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,764
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
It's not working so well in New Jersey.



Linky:
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/20...w_fails_t.html
Well, so much for that argument. In theory, of course, civil unions ought to be equivalent to marriage except for name, but I don't suppose it should be a surprise that it has fallen short. Separate but equal just never seems to fly.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 03:40 PM   #367
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,438
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I would argue that the same is very nearly true for gays. If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing.
They would only have equal rights if this civil union equivalent was pretty much a copy of marriage law. The same is not true for for "incestuous couples" as they are already have many of those rights. Don't obfuscate the point of my argument: one group needs marriage or a marriage equivalent, the other group does not.

Quote:
So, if you were to decide that the Constitution required equal protection for any particular sort of couple, or the children of that couple, very few people demanding it would be satisfied with anything less than marriage, specifically.
By calling it "less than marriage" you show your own bias: you would not consider those civil unions to be equal. You would consider them to be less.

Quote:
Well, sort of. Laws about marriage and sex are very closely intertwined, even today, and much more so historically, as I am sure you understand.
No, I don't understand. Which "laws about sex" are closely intertwined with marriage?
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 05:39 PM   #368
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
They would only have equal rights if this civil union equivalent was pretty much a copy of marriage law. The same is not true for for "incestuous couples" as they are already have many of those rights. Don't obfuscate the point of my argument: one group needs marriage or a marriage equivalent, the other group does not.
It certainly is not my intent to obfuscate. In fact, I think I agree with you.

Let's consider couple A and couple B. Both desire the rights associated with marriage. (They might desire those rights for themselves, or they might desire those rights on behalf of minor children they are raising.) Couple A has none of those rights. To get them, they get married. Couple B, however, already has some of those rights, so the state invents a new entity called marriag. It grants people all of the rights of marriage, except those already enjoyed by couple B. The state refuses to let couple be participate in marriage, but allows marriag. Now, couple A and couple B have equal rights. Couple B did not need marriage or a marriage equivalent, because they could get those rights via marriag.

I agree. Couple B does not need marriage.

However, many would object. Although, technically, the two couple have equal rights, the very fact that one of them is called "marriage" and the other is called "marriag". is, all by itself, enough difference to say that the two couples do not, in fact, have equal rights. In order to get the rights of marriage, according to this argument, they must have marriage itself.

In other words, according to many, there is no such thing as a "marriage equivalent". They would say that gay and straight people in the United Kingdom do not have equal rights, because in the UK, opposite sex couples can get married, while same sex couples can get a "civil partnership". This, according to those who advance this argument, would be constitutionally unacceptable in the United States, because it does not grant the couples exactly the same rights. They are identical, except in name, but that would not be considered satisfactory to many.

Quote:
By calling it "less than marriage" you show your own bias:
It isn't me that calls it "less than marriage". It's them. They say that those in the UK with "civil partnerships" have something less than marriage. My personal opinion is that UK civil partners have the equivalent of marriage.

Quote:
No, I don't understand. Which "laws about sex" are closely intertwined with marriage?
(I fancy Skeptic is shaking his head as I try to answer this, but here goes.)

Of course, historically, the two were totally intertwined. For example, in many places, it was a crime to have sex with anyone other than your lawful spouse. No exceptions. In some parts of the world, of course, that is still the case.

Here in the United States there are still examples of laws where sex and marriage are related. Although adultery is no longer a criminal offense, it can still be presented as evidence in divorce proceedings. Some states also recognize "at fault" divorce, and impotence, adultery, or various euphemisms for "not putting out" are all recognized as grounds for divorce. A recent court case affirmed the right of a police department to sanction one of its officers for adultery. (I didn't save the link, but I found it while looking up information about incest.)

In many states, it is illegal for people below a certain age to engage in sexual intercourse. This is the case regardless of consent, and regardless of the relative age of the partners. Sex below a certain age is a crime. (ETA: Technically, I think the actual crime is sex with a partner who is below a certain age, regardless of your own age.) However, there is an exception for married couples. Young people in some of those states are allowed to get married (sometimes the permission of a judge or the parents is required). If they are married, their sexual relations are no longer a crime.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 7th May 2009 at 06:29 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2009, 07:31 PM   #369
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It certainly is not my intent to obfuscate. In fact, I think I agree with you.

Let's consider couple A and couple B. Both desire the rights associated with marriage. (They might desire those rights for themselves, or they might desire those rights on behalf of minor children they are raising.) Couple A has none of those rights. To get them, they get married. Couple B, however, already has some of those rights, so the state invents a new entity called marriag. It grants people all of the rights of marriage, except those already enjoyed by couple B. The state refuses to let couple be participate in marriage, but allows marriag. Now, couple A and couple B have equal rights. Couple B did not need marriage or a marriage equivalent, because they could get those rights via marriag.

I agree. Couple B does not need marriage.

However, many would object. Although, technically, the two couple have equal rights, the very fact that one of them is called "marriage" and the other is called "marriag". is, all by itself, enough difference to say that the two couples do not, in fact, have equal rights. In order to get the rights of marriage, according to this argument, they must have marriage itself.

In other words, according to many, there is no such thing as a "marriage equivalent". They would say that gay and straight people in the United Kingdom do not have equal rights, because in the UK, opposite sex couples can get married, while same sex couples can get a "civil partnership". This, according to those who advance this argument, would be constitutionally unacceptable in the United States, because it does not grant the couples exactly the same rights. They are identical, except in name, but that would not be considered satisfactory to many.



It isn't me that calls it "less than marriage". It's them. They say that those in the UK with "civil partnerships" have something less than marriage. My personal opinion is that UK civil partners have the equivalent of marriage.



(I fancy Skeptic is shaking his head as I try to answer this, but here goes.)

Of course, historically, the two were totally intertwined. For example, in many places, it was a crime to have sex with anyone other than your lawful spouse. No exceptions. In some parts of the world, of course, that is still the case.

Here in the United States there are still examples of laws where sex and marriage are related. Although adultery is no longer a criminal offense, it can still be presented as evidence in divorce proceedings. Some states also recognize "at fault" divorce, and impotence, adultery, or various euphemisms for "not putting out" are all recognized as grounds for divorce. A recent court case affirmed the right of a police department to sanction one of its officers for adultery. (I didn't save the link, but I found it while looking up information about incest.)

In many states, it is illegal for people below a certain age to engage in sexual intercourse. This is the case regardless of consent, and regardless of the relative age of the partners. Sex below a certain age is a crime. (ETA: Technically, I think the actual crime is sex with a partner who is below a certain age, regardless of your own age.) However, there is an exception for married couples. Young people in some of those states are allowed to get married (sometimes the permission of a judge or the parents is required). If they are married, their sexual relations are no longer a crime.
OK, now how the hell do the sexes of the people involved matter?

ETA:

Also, it's deeply ironic to me that it's not the proponents of gay marriage (you aren't one, Meadmaker) who focus on the sexual aspect of marriage, but its opponents - those who allegedly see marriage as sacred and pure.

ETA again: Here, this is why you are not a gay marriage proponent. You're for seperate but equal. You're for gays as second class citizens.

Last edited by ImaginalDisc; 7th May 2009 at 07:52 PM.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2009, 04:19 AM   #370
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Hey, check it out.

After careful weighing of the fact and a fair application of reason, Pat Robertson came to the same logical conclusion as our very own Skeptic! Neat!

With these two paragons of critical thinking in agreement, I don't know how anyone could be in doubt that they must be correct.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2009, 07:56 AM   #371
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,474
Skeptic, do you read responses first, or just go ahead and post without catching up? A little of both?

In any event, I'll try for the third time:

How are you, personally, affected by two people in, say, Vermont getting married?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 8th May 2009 at 07:58 AM.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2009, 03:49 PM   #372
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Is wiating for reason from Skeptic and meadmaker like waiting for Jesus, or peace in the middle east?
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2009, 05:56 PM   #373
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
Is wiating for reason from Skeptic and meadmaker like waiting for Jesus, or peace in the middle east?
Well you do seem to be able to more often have a more meaningful debate with meadmaker than Skeptic.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2009, 06:06 PM   #374
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Well you do seem to be able to more often have a more meaningful debate with meadmaker than Skeptic.
Granted, though it feels like pulling teeth. Meadmaker's position regarding gay marriage has changed, and being willing to reconsider ethics is praiseworthy.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.